either works, ht just needs a vcore bumpOriginally Posted by freshy
either works, ht just needs a vcore bump
On average, how much of a Vcore bump?
So to achieve stability with HT on versus off at the same Ghz, you need a vcore bump? That makes sense because my rig is 12 hours Prime stable at 1.39v with HT off but I've tested it at 1.41v@4Ghz with HT on and had issues.
Core i7 920@4.0Ghz(1.26v) - 6GB Corsair DDR3 1600 - WD Velociraptor 300GB - Asus P6T Deluxe - 2xEVGA GTX 260 216 Superclocked - Dell 2407WFP - Silverstone DA850 - Coolermaster Stacker 810
quite a bit actually like .03-.04
It could be a per chip thing but it could be more likely a per motherbard BIOS thing. The guy that posted above you has an Asus P6T and you've got a giga board.
Makes sense. Oh well, my rig is used for gaming exclusively I could care less if it can handle 8 virtual cores maxed out for an extended period of time. No game comes close to maxing 4 cores so I'll leave it as it is. I'm going to try dropping the voltage even more and see if it stays Prime stable on four cores.
Core i7 920@4.0Ghz(1.26v) - 6GB Corsair DDR3 1600 - WD Velociraptor 300GB - Asus P6T Deluxe - 2xEVGA GTX 260 216 Superclocked - Dell 2407WFP - Silverstone DA850 - Coolermaster Stacker 810
Do you have ACPI 2 enabled?
200 x20 is working fine here. Maybe its a per chip thing?I think that it may be a per-chip thing, except I have no explanation for it short of some chips actually having faults. However, I'd think this would be a pretty high number of faults as both i7 940s I use have the same problem and they were picked totally at random, and a lot of other people are reporting not being able to stabilize anything with 20x multiplier. The flip side of this is that the failure rate is surprisingly high for it to slip past Intel's QC which then points to the boards being the culprits. Could anyone confirm that this does not in fact happen on non-Asus boards?Same here. In fact, if anything 20x200 is more stable for me than either 19x211 or 21x191.
In terms of stability, In theory, 20x200 should be more stable than 19x211 or 21x191 as one pushes the BCLK close to the limits, and the other pushes the multiplier to the limit (at least for i7 920).
Anyway, I am again failing on 20x200. It seems that whatever happened yesterday when I ran it was a fluke. I managed to do a few runs with it fine, but now again 20x200 is not stable where as even 216x19 is stable (but too hot for my taste). Running on R2E here...
Chip or mobo either way it is BS. If it is the chip, Intel will probably just fix it all in the next stepping as opposed to providing any kind of good workaround. If it is the mobo, I am not expecting a fix ever.
Last edited by dejanh; 12-11-2008 at 12:39 PM.
I agree this is very weird. My i940 with any bios and turbo off, will run 4ghz, 20x200, 21x191, 22x182 all at exact same vcore of 1.35bios and all 12 hrs prime stable. maybe if people list mobo, all settings, or ? cpu batch #'s and see if anything in common on those having problems with 20 multi vs not. Be interesting if could find any common issues. (I cant test with turbo on since 20x200 turbo on i940 is 23x200, 4.6 is not going to prime.)
Is vcore the only important voltage? Do other voltages need to be increased to achieve 4.0+ ghz?
My first post, max prime stable 11+hrs for my i7 e965,
HT enabled max volts for vcore, qpi and vdimm: 1.55, 1.3 and 1.64
Is this too high vcore for up to 12hrs/day?
max cpu v as stated here http://i4memory.com/wp/article/422
Cooling Method air - Noctua U12P sandwiched with two Ultra Kaze 120s (fans turned down to tolerable db level).
Real temp max was 97 – all cores stayed at “ok” status.
screen capture hopefully follows -
@ Furious: Rasing my QPI/Vtt to 1.4v allowed me to lower my vcore, pll you may or may not need to bump as well
If I turn off HT I can do better -
Bobylite - raise qpi to 1.4 to get lower vcore?
I will give that a try, thanks!
do you have an i7? Because this is not true, there is a careful balance of voltages that need to be met.
@ steve. I suppose if intel says 1.55 max, then its 1.55 max. I wouldnt feel safe running it that high or hot. Sure you need that much vcore? Try toying with your other voltages more. QPI especially
1.315v max for qpi, and 1.55v max for vcore
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Bring... bring the amber lamps.
SteveRo...nice to know one can run stable at 97C, mine runs hots as well, even though on water, at 1.5 vcore I would probably be near there myself.
Hyperthreading off does allow you to run same mhz with less vcore partly b/c less threads, but also because you are using F3 bios which is giving you turbo with 4 threads (turbo is off with hyperthreading enabled), and the turbo multi - extra mhz (134 in your case) comes at a cheaper vcore price, for unexplained reasons.
Point is you could update to bios F4j on extreme, enable turbo, and run at same mhz (prime loaded) with probably less vcore than F3 bios, b/c the extra +1multi which again for whatever reason gives same mhz with less vcore that non turbo +1 multi.
Ok, thank you. I have tried Vcore up to 1.4 on my 965. However my computer crashes in prime 95 @ 4.0ghz 1.4v. That seems like way more than anybody with a 920 requires. What is the max safe vcore on a Core I7?unless you are running the memory in 1:1 with the cpu then the cpu vcore is the only thing u need to increase.
I am going to experiment with Turbo and see if that will lessen the need for vcore.
Last edited by FuriousSalesman; 12-11-2008 at 02:34 PM.
he has an extreme = unlocked multi so he can set it at whatever he wants
absolute max specs per intel data sheet:
My Corsair memory is reading a DRAM voltage of 1.66v. Given that Intel has stated that anything over 1.65v can damage the CPU, are there any reports on whether the .01v overage poses any danger?
Core i7 920@4.0Ghz(1.26v) - 6GB Corsair DDR3 1600 - WD Velociraptor 300GB - Asus P6T Deluxe - 2xEVGA GTX 260 216 Superclocked - Dell 2407WFP - Silverstone DA850 - Coolermaster Stacker 810
How can Vcc have a negative min...
Asus Rampage II Gene | Core i7 920 | 6*2GB Mushkin 998729 | BFG GTX280 OCX | Auzentech X-Fi Forte | Corsair VX550
—Life is too short to be bound by the moral, ethical and legal constraints imposed on us by modern day society.
Easy. They're simply recommending that you don't undervolt the chip by more than that amount.How can Vcc have a negative min...
Last edited by Classic Satch; 12-11-2008 at 04:17 PM.
Core i7 920@4.0Ghz(1.26v) - 6GB Corsair DDR3 1600 - WD Velociraptor 300GB - Asus P6T Deluxe - 2xEVGA GTX 260 216 Superclocked - Dell 2407WFP - Silverstone DA850 - Coolermaster Stacker 810
No. You are not running over 1.65V. If you took a MM to your board you would see that your memory is likely running at 0.02V less than that, so about 1.64V. Either way, it is so close that it makes absolutely no difference. I think a BIOS update changes this as well.My Corsair memory is reading a DRAM voltage of 1.66v. Given that Intel has stated that anything over 1.65v can damage the CPU, are there any reports on whether the .01v overage poses any danger?
Well, allow me to give a few details then about my setup...
Rampage II Extreme, 0804 BIOS (tried all others as well with no effect) running a Core i7 940...
Posting settings for 20x200 is irrelevant as no combination of settings works. For other combinations that work (e.g., 19x212, 21x191) it is your standard things, vcore, qpi/dram, dram, loadline, etc.
Last edited by dejanh; 12-11-2008 at 04:14 PM.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know the DRAM Bus voltage can go over 1.65 as long as it remains within 0.5 volts of the QPI/DRAM core voltage.
Thermaltake Tai Chi | Core i7 920 @ 4.0GHz | Asus P6T Deluxe | 6GB Corsair TR31600 | Gigabyte GTX260 | TRUE-120 | Corsair HX1000 | Dell 2707FPW | Dell E173FP | Compro VideoMate E900F | Raptor 150 | 2 x Seagate 1TB's | 3 x Seagate 750's
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks